"Conservatives Enable And Support Domestic Terrorism And Murder"

so after watching elizabeth edwards politely ask mann coulter to stop calling for the death of her husband, this needs to be repeated time and time and time again. this needs to be the talking point to stick to when it comes to dealing with people like the hellwhore mann coulter.

with their diatribe, conservatives enable and support domestic terrorism and murder.

remind conservatives that people like mann coulter advocate blowing up buildings in new york (NYT building) and simply say, "well with rhetoric like that republicans must have been dancing in the streets on 9-11 or after oklahoma city"

when conservatives say stuff like presidential candidates should be shot or killed in terrorist attacks simply say, "well conservatives must have loved john wilkes booth. its nice to see conservatives are following the examples of the soviets."


conservatives enable and support domestic terrorism and murder. this needs to be made a center talking point to beat them over the head with.

whenever conservatives say this stuff, this needs to be repeated by democrats, liberals, etc etc over and over again.


"if you support domestic terrorism, vote republican." "its only a matter of time before conservatives are flying airplanes into women's health clinics." "if you want a federal building blown up or a presidential candidate killed by terrorists, vote republican"


conservatives need to be treated a certain way. they pull a knife, you pull a gun, they send one of yours to the hospital, you send one of theirs to the morgue.

science professor where she compared laws concerning child and maternal welfare in all of the 50 states. She had expected that prolife states would have better laws that helped and protected women and their children than pro choice states.

Just the opposite, she learned! One area was that of domestic violence laws. In prolife states abusing men got off with lighter punishment than in prochoice states.

I wish I still had the professor's study but this was perhaps 6 years ago. The study was great because it was empirical; there was no arguing the facts!

The new deal saved this country. She's just a descendent of the fifth column and when you get down to it; we are really in the last battles of WWII.

...for some time by their own:

<snip>
February 14, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

Hunger for Dictatorship
War to export democracy may wreck our own.

by Scott McConnell


Students of history inevitably think in terms of periods: the New Deal, McCarthyism, “the Sixties” (1964-1973), the NEP, the purge trials—all have their dates. Weimar, whose cultural excesses made effective propaganda for the Nazis, now seems like the antechamber to Nazism, though surely no Weimar figures perceived their time that way as they were living it. We may pretend to know what lies ahead, feigning certainty to score polemical points, but we never do.


<skip to end>
It is impossible to overstate my pleasure at being on the same side of the barricades with him today. That side is, of course, that of the antiwar movement; the side of a conservatism (or liberalism) that finds Bush’s policies reckless and absurd and the neoconservatives who inspire and implement them deluded and dangerous. In the past year, I had seen Stern’s letters to the editor in the Times (“Now the word ‘freedom’ has become a newly invoked justification for the occupation of a country that did not attack us, whose people have not greeted our soldiers as liberators. … The world knows that all manner of traditional rights associated with freedom are threatened in our own country. ... The essential element of a democratic society—trust—has been weakened, as secrecy, mendacity and intimidation have become the hallmarks of this administration. ... Now ‘freedom’ is being emptied of meaning and reduced to a slogan. But one doesn’t demean the concept without injuring the substance.”) In the profile of him in the Times, he sounds an alarm of the very phenomenon Roberts, Raimondo, and Rockwell are speaking about openly.

To an audience at the Leo Baeck Institute, on the occasion of receiving a prize from Germany’s foreign minister, Stern noted that Hitler had seen himself as “the instrument of providence” and fused his “racial dogma with Germanic Christianity.” This “pseudo–religious transfiguration of politics … largely ensured his success.” The Times’ Chris Hedges asked Stern about the parallels between Germany then and America now. He spoke of national mood—drawing on a lifetime of scholarship that saw fascism coming from below as much as imposed by elites above. “There was a longing in Europe for fascism before the name was ever invented... for a new authoritarianism with some kind of religious orientation and above all a greater communal belongingness. There are some similarities in the mood then and the mood now, although significant differences.”

This is characteristic Stern—measured and precise—but signals to me that the warning from the libertarians ought not be simply dismissed as rhetorical excess. I don’t think there are yet real fascists in the administration, but there is certainly now a constituency for them —hungry to bomb foreigners and smash those Americans who might object. And when there are constituencies, leaders may not be far behind. They could be propelled into power by a populace ever more frustrated that the imperialist war it has supported—generally for the most banal of patriotic reasons—cannot possibly end in victory. And so scapegoats are sought, and if we can’t bomb Arabs into submission, or the French, domestic critics of Bush will serve.

Stern points to the religious (and more explicitly Protestant) component in the rise of Nazism—but I don’t think the proto-fascist mood is strongest among the so-called Christian Right. The critical letters this magazine receives from self-identified evangelical Christians are almost always civil in tone; those from Christian Zionists may quote Scripture about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute in ways that are maddeningly nonrational and indisputably pre-Enlightenment—but these are not the letters foaming with a hatred for those with the presumption to oppose George W. Bush’s wars for freedom and democracy. The genuinely devout are perhaps less inclined to see the United States as “God marching on earth.”

Secondly, it is necessary to distinguish between a sudden proliferation of fascist tendencies and an imminent danger. There may be, among some neocons and some more populist right-wingers, unmistakable antidemocratic tendencies. But America hasn’t yet experienced organized street violence against dissenters or a state that is willing—in an unambiguous fashion—to jail its critics. The administration certainly has its far Right ideologues—the Washington Post’s recent profile of Alberto Gonzales, whose memos are literally written for him by Cheney aide David Addington, provides striking evidence. But the Bush administration still seems more embarrassed than proud of its most authoritarian aspects. Gonzales takes some pains to present himself as an opponent of torture; hypocrisy in this realm is perhaps preferable to open contempt for international law and the Bill of Rights.

And yet the very fact that the f-word can be seriously raised in an American context is evidence enough that we have moved into a new period. The invasion of Iraq has put the possibility of the end to American democracy on the table and has empowered groups on the Right that would acquiesce to and in some cases welcome the suppression of core American freedoms. That would be the titanic irony of course, the mother of them all—that a war initiated under the pretense of spreading democracy would lead to its destruction in one of its very birthplaces. But as historians know, history is full of ironies.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_02_14/article.html

that this is the kind of rhetoric that needs to be exposed. people, for the most part, only go on a few quick lines.

I suggest simply repeating the same line over and over across the internet, on talk shows, etc etc.

"conservatives enable and embolden domestic terrorism and murder."

conservatives keep their message simple for their simple minded audience. all we need to do is streamline it down and force them to explain. if you said that, and someone said thats nonsense, then respond, "so why do conservatives support ann coulter in wanting to see presidential candidates assassinated by terrorists?"

make them play defense. "err umm well uhh it was all a joke" "err umm well uhh, i don't support that kind of speech."